Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (37515)	8/13/2002 10:37:18 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

In Greeley's universe, WW2 passes the second but not the first. You would have to ask him why. So you would disagree with Greeley with regard to what constitutes a "just" versus a "necessary" war?? As for unanticipated consequences, who would have guessed in 1991 that Saddam would not fall in the near future (which is what the coalition partners were all counting on). Or that he would later brutally suppress the uprising amongst the marsh arabs of S. Iraq (causing incredible environmental damage by draining the marshes), attempt to assassinate Bush Sr, thwart any rigorous UN inspection process, cause some 1-2 million Iraqis to flee as refugees from his regime, finance and support the activities of a wide variety of terrorist groups, and now providing blood money to the families of suicide bombers. I mean, who would have guessed that 19 guys could hijack 4 passenger aircraft and be so fanatical that they would sacrifice themselves in order to kill thousands of people?? Thus, there are surely unanticipated consequences to war John. But there are unanticipated consequences to NOT going to war. Who would have guessed that not opposing Hitler in the early '30s (Rhineland/Czechoslovakia) would have led to the deaths of some 30-50 million people (variable spread since we don't really know how many Russians died)? Stalin? We know the unintended consequences for hundreds of millions of people in eastern Europe by not opposing him. And now the unintended consequences of applying a half-@ssed policy of containment which has left us flying (flailing?) around for the past 12 years in a battle of brinksmanship with this thug, and which commits American forces pledged to a "no-exit strategy" policy for the foreseeable future. We've been bombing Iraq for the past 12 years, off and on, with human loss of life, military and civilian, with little to show for it except increasing risk to US forces stationed in the area. I opine that it's time we quick sitting on our hands and reshape the muslim view towards modernization to one that is more tolerant with our own values. There will obviously be "unintended consequences" but the reality is that we're damned if we do, and MORE damned if we don't. We lose our moral imperative as a nation which will support political freedom, human rights, and economic opportunity. Little about what makes America "special" will have any bearing since we're seen as a paper tiger that can't even protect its own territory from attack by a bunch of terrorists. And while thinking about "unintended consequences", if we're unwilling to react to such provocation by our enemies, then aren't we making it easier for THEM to avoid unintended consequences to their actions?? After all, if they can predict your response, they know exactly what they can and cannot get away with. Hawk